GAT_00:These things first flew at the end of 2006. How the fark does it take 7 years to progress to night landings?

The A variant started in '06, according to Wiki the B variant (the one with the VTOL system) didn't start tests of that system until 2010. Still though, close to three years before attempting a night landing seems like a lot, but I'm not an aircraft engineer.

The Harrier was introduced in 1969 and was replaced by the Harrier II, which was designed by British Aerospace, McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing. Those are what's flying today. But they aren't supersonic or stealthy, so the F-35 is a big upgrade.

They have a handful of F-35s down here at MCAS Yuma, but they're supposed to eventually have five squadrons. One flew in March, but I haven't seen it yet.

wejash:Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force. Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

While I'm all for developing cool technology stuff even if we'll never need it, I wish more of it would be spent on things like NASA programs that have the possibility of enriching humanity as a whole instead of just new and better ways to drop bombs on people we don't like.

Heck, if we cut our defense budget in half we'd still have more to work with than the next four biggest spenders combined, and just think of where we'd be in terms of space exploration if that type of funding had been available to NASA since the end of the cold war. We'd probably have permanent manned installations on the moon and Mars by know and be getting ready to land men on Europa.

There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

TuteTibiImperes:wejash: Thank god we're prepared to defeat the 21st Century Soviet Air Force. Damn, I was worried they were getting a tech leap forward on us.

Whew!

While I'm all for developing cool technology stuff even if we'll never need it, I wish more of it would be spent on things like NASA programs that have the possibility of enriching humanity as a whole instead of just new and better ways to drop bombs on people we don't like.

Heck, if we cut our defense budget in half we'd still have more to work with than the next four biggest spenders combined, and just think of where we'd be in terms of space exploration if that type of funding had been available to NASA since the end of the cold war. We'd probably have permanent manned installations on the moon and Mars by know and be getting ready to land men on Europa.

Not to mention if they gave the money to NASA that they give directly to Lockhead and Boeing and BAE and Northrop and Raytheon and....

those defense tech companies would still receive contracts and stay afloat!(who do you think built the space shuttle hull, or it's cockpit HUD unit, or all it's other parts, or basically anything we strap to a rocket and fire into space.. including the rockets themselves)..while the money is used to pursue advancement of our entire species across countless applications, not strictly just our nation's military prowess.

In fact, in that one point alone you can see that there is more than meets the eye to our insistence on massive military spending. As with space research it's usually the same pockets that are being filled.

The discoveries and tech that result from a vibrant space program have proven to be a boon to both commercial and military tech advancement.While discoveries and tech that result from vibrant "defense" programs usually stay hidden out of some fear of public backlash or espionage by foreign nations.

Large space programs have a habit of bringing nations together in a spirit of both competition and cooperation.Who needs a liberal wetdream candyland like that?Large military programs have a habit of starting wars with previously innocuous nations filled with brown people in the middle of the desert (the perfect place to test out your... I mean free the crap out of people)

It's a cool jet and I love hardware, but I agree with your sentiment. Imagine where we could be if these types of techs were in pursuit of something other than death and war.

In a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way... all made possible by the advancements towards a lightweight recoverable/reusable lander. Of course that's straight from my ass, but as long as all we focus on is better ways of blowing each other up we'll never know.

/But then the beast living under the Pentagon's belly would rumble and the commies terrorists would win, and we can't have that.

REO-Weedwagon:There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

DrPainMD:Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

muck4doo:REO-Weedwagon: There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

MurphyMurphy:muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

muck4doo:MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

So you have no frame of reference here, Donny.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

MurphyMurphy:muck4doo: MurphyMurphy: muck4doo: So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Apparently you aren't familiar with the finer points of nuclear deterrence strategy.

It not only has defined our role as a superpower in the 2nd half of the 20th century, today and will well into the future.... it's also responsible for the global power distribution we have today and is likely the only reason the U.N. didn't see the same fate as the League of Nations.

It's a minor topic probably not worth you looking into or understanding.

You're right. We should have just nuked Pakistan when we wanted to kill Bin Laden.

So you have no frame of reference here, Donny.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

No no. I see your point. We got lots of nukes. That's all we need. Spending money on planes and stuff isn't necessary.

muck4doo:DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Maybe we don't need to get in so many conflicts. Being the world's policeman is something we don't have to do.

MrBallou:muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

Maybe we don't need to get in so many conflicts. Being the world's policeman is something we don't have to do.

MurphyMurphy:In a parallel universe, that video could have been testing for a next-gen medical evac vehicle better than a helicopter in every way... all made possible by the advancements towards a lightweight recoverable/reusable lander.

It wouldn't happen because no one would pay for it.How could a hospital justify spending fifty billion on a coaxial helicopter design that gets to accident scenes faster, over spending on more facilities and staff or paying their shareholders higher dividends?

It costs billions to develop these things and no one brings the kind of funding that the military does. When deadlines are missed and accidents happen, no one can shoulder past the criticism like the military can. Security is a visceral need and its not hard for a soldier to justify spending money to keep the enemy off your doorstep.

An alternate world without that need doesn't give capitalism as many excuses to hustle the process. Development still happens, but its slow and plodding with extra care taken not to be wasteful.Which sounds good until you realize it takes decades to develop the kind of helicopter that would have been built in three during the cold war.

/Even going to the moon wasn't done out of scientific curiosity./That was about keeping the red menace from getting the high ground./Once it was secured, the money and political will to explore dried up.

DrPainMD:Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

and as long as power wealthy families who own the corporations, banks and government continue to be in charge it will just get worse. looking at headline news from the past 10-20 years, there is absolutely nothing that will inspire Americans to use their millions of beloved firearms for more than slaying deer, street crime and masturbation.

REO-Weedwagon:There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

DrPainMD:Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

Tobin_Lam:Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

If you think that spending public money to prop up the economy is bad unless it's spend on the military, you might be a Republican.

More seriously: spending tax money on a military we don't need and won't use is like digging holes, filling them with money, and then covering them over. If you want to boost a local economy and keep people employed with tax money -- which, I agree, is sometimes a good idea when you need to buffer change or soften decline -- spend it on things that will actually produce economic benefit or leave some lasting benefit, like roads, schools, fire stations, healthcare. Something with a multiplier greater than 1, rather than a multiplier close to zero.

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

To be fair, in 20-30 years, it's gonna be drones, drones and more drones. Why put a guy in a plane when a high performance drone will be able to pull more Gs, weight less, spend more time airborne and require far less logistics and consideration(don't have to worry about rescuing a pilot, ect...)

RockofAges:Tobin_Lam: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

A) Godwin, Amerikuhhh Fark Yeah! Style.

B) While you may be correct that slicing the military this drastically at once would have catastrophic economic repercussion, there is no arguing the fact that the military sector in the United States has been fattened up by such an indescribable amount for uncountable years, and certainly could do with quite a bit of year over year dieting.

I will argue point B. The size of the military steadily shrank by over 50% from 1970 to 2001 and at its most recent peak hit the highest level since 1997. The most recent numbers I could find put it on par with 1996 and that includes cadets and midshipmen that aren't even on active duty yet. The military is on a diet and has been dieting for quite some time.

czetie:Tobin_Lam: Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

If you think that spending public money to prop up the economy is bad unless it's spend on the military, you might be a Republican.

More seriously: spending tax money on a military we don't need and won't use is like digging holes, filling them with money, and then covering them over. If you want to boost a local economy and keep people employed with tax money -- which, I agree, is sometimes a good idea when you need to buffer change or soften decline -- spend it on things that will actually produce economic benefit or leave some lasting benefit, like roads, schools, fire stations, healthcare. Something with a multiplier greater than 1, rather than a multiplier close to zero.

I do somewhat agree with that. I heard on the radio that Obama wants to put people to work improving our roads. I have no problem with that and it isn't often that I agree with him.

Good thing that money didn't need to be spent anywhere else! Yessir, our roads, bridges, schools, and veterans have all the funding they need, so we might as well dump a bunch of money into a questionably-useful weapons system! It's all about the jobs!